The defendant shall be innocent.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant had sufficiently known the victim of financial standing, and would receive loans from the Gwangju Bank to pay the borrowed money.

After the phrase, since the applicant for a loan to the Gwangju Bank was actually applied for, but the loan was not implemented, it was inevitable to repay the loan, there is no fact that the victim was deceiving the intention to repay or the ability to repay

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below finding guilty of the charged facts of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records of this case’s judgment ex officio, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Labor Standards Act at the Daejeon District Court on February 8, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 26, 2018. As such, the Defendant’s crime of fraud and the violation of the Labor Standards Act, which became final and conclusive in the judgment of the court below, with respect to the Defendant, is in a concurrent crime relationship with the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a punishment shall be determined in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment is to be rendered at the same time pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus,

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to deliberation. Therefore, this is examined below.

3. Determination as to the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. On January 30, 2015, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant borrowed a loan from the bank in addition to a bank if a normal transaction is made by depositing the money into the bank, as the cash for the current account issued at the time of the construction of the commercial gate in the instant case, at the scene of the Dpenta Corporation, the Defendant: (a) borrowed the money from the bank; and (b) borrowed the money from the bank, as the cash for the current account was insufficient; and (c) borrowed the money from the bank.